This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/members-discuss@ripe.net/
[members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jorge Amodio
jmamodio at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 17:08:10 CET 2010
> But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on > why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication > networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on > the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same > geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of > nationwide RIR. That will be an extremely bad idea. ITU is aspiring to be a global RIR. Once upon a time since the network architecture/protocols/technology required the assignment/allocation of particular object identifiers that must be globally unique we had Jon Postel's authoritative notepad that later assumed the IANA name and became institutionalized as ICANNzilla. On the address space IANA delegates part of its authority to regional registries and even when there are some common practices and guidelines/policies, each registry establishes its own policies via a bottom-up policy development process for address allocation and how to deal with issues associated with this practice. Since there are requirements/policies associated, each RIR indirectly acts as a soft "regulator" by applying the terms and conditions and collecting fees. It is not a perfect "system" and if something is wrong with a particular RIR or policy that is what needs to be fixed, not create an alternative channel that intends to override the existing "authority" delegation tree by developing its own policies and trying to enforce them through national governments telecom regulations, which imho is what ITU is attempting to do. Basic example (bah very stupid one), Johnny SPAM-BoTnEt on country XX wants IP address space for his operations that in XX-land may not be considered illegal, when service providers direct him to the appropriate RIR there is a chance that the RIR will give a hard time to Johnny to get his address space due the obscurity of his operations that may be illegal in other countries within the region. Then Johnny will go to King of XX who will call his nephew at ITU to get the address space for poor Johnny. Not good. -J
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]